Coral Reef Operating Systems, LLC d/b/a Coral Reef Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, L.L.C.

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Mar 25, 2020

369 N.L.R.B. 47 (N.L.R.B. 2020)

369 NLRB No. 47
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
bound volumes of NLRB decisions. Readers are requested to notify the Ex-
ecutive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, Washington, D.C.
20570, of any typographical or other formal errors so that corrections can
be included in the bound volumes.
Coral Reef Operating Systems, LLC d/b/a Coral Reef
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC and
1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East.
Case 12–CA–238299
March 25, 2020
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN RING AND MEMBERS KAPLAN AND
EMANUEL
On November 1, 2019, Administrative Law Judge
Donna N. Dawson issued the attached decision. The Gen-
eral Counsel filed exceptions.
The National Labor Relations Board has considered the
decision and the record in light of the exceptions and has
decided to affirm the judge’s rulings, findings,1 and con-
clusions and to adopt the recommended Order as modified
and set forth in full below.2
AMENDED REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in cer-
tain unfair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and
desist and to take certain affirmative action designed to
effectuate the policies of the Act. Specifically, having
found that the Respondent violated Section 8(a)(5) and (1)
of the Act by failing to execute an agreed-upon collective-
bargaining agreement, we shall order the Respondent to
execute and adhere to the agreement and, pursuant to its
terms, give it retroactive effect to March 1, 2017. We shall
also order the Respondent to make unit employees whole
for any loss of earnings and other benefits resulting from
its unlawful conduct. Backpay shall be computed in ac-
cordance with Ogle Protection Service, 183 NLRB 682
(1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir. 1971), with interest
as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987),
compounded daily as prescribed in Kentucky River Medi-
cal Center, 356 NLRB 6 (2010). The Respondent also
shall be required to compensate unit employees for any
adverse tax consequences of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards in accordance with Don Chavas, LLC d/b/a Tortil-
las Don Chavas, 361 NLRB 101 (2014), and to file a re-
port with the Regional Director for Region 12, within 21
days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either by
1 The judge found that the Union accepted the Respondent’s proposed
collective-bargaining agreement on January 9, 2019, but in several places
in her decision she inadvertently referenced that date as January 19,
2019. The record makes clear that January 9 is the correct date, and the
Order so reflects.
The only unfair labor practice issue in this case is whether the Re-
spondent violated Sec. 8(a)(5) and (1) of the Act by refusing to execute
agreement or Board order, a report allocating the backpay
awards to the appropriate calendar years for each em-
ployee pursuant to AdvoServ of New Jersey, Inc., 363
NLRB No. 143 (2016). Additionally, we shall order the
Respondent to preserve and provide, at a reasonable place
designated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records
and other relevant records, including an electronic copy of
such records if stored in electronic form, necessary to an-
alyze the amount of backpay due under the terms of the
Order, in accordance with Ferguson Electric Co., 335
NLRB 142 (2001).
ORDER
The Respondent, Coral Reef Operating Systems, LLC
d/b/a Coral Reef Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC,
Miami, Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and as-
signs, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to execute a collective-bargain-
ing agreement the Respondent reached with the Union on
January 9, 2019.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, re-
straining, or coercing employees in the exercise of the
rights guaranteed them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to
effectuate the policies of the Act.
(a) Execute and adhere to the collective-bargaining
agreement reached with the Union on January 9, 2019, and
give retroactive effect to the terms of that agreement to
March 1, 2017, in accordance with its terms, covering the
Respondent’s employees in the following appropriate bar-
gaining unit:
All full-time and regular part-time CNAs, laundry em-
ployees, maintenance employees, dietary employees
and housekeeping employees; excluding all registered
nurses, licensed practical nurses, confidential employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
(b) Make unit employees whole for any loss of earnings
and other benefits suffered as a result of its unlawful con-
duct, in the manner set forth in the remedy section of the
judge’s decision as amended in this decision.
(c) Compensate unit employees for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay awards,
and file with the Regional Director for Region 12, within
a collective-bargaining agreement the parties had reached, and there are
no exceptions to the judge’s finding that it did.
2 The General Counsel’s exceptions request certain remedial modifi-
cations. We shall amend the remedy section of the judge’s decision and
modify the judge’s recommended Order to supply several standard rem-
edies the judge omitted. We shall substitute a new notice to conform to
the Order as modified.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD2
21 days of the date the amount of backpay is fixed, either
by agreement or Board order, a report allocating the back-
pay awards to the appropriate calendar years.
(d) Preserve and, within 14 days of a request, or such
additional time as the Regional Director may allow for
good cause shown, provide at a reasonable place desig-
nated by the Board or its agents, all payroll records, social
security payment records, timecards, personnel records
and reports, and all other records, including an electronic
copy of such records if stored in electronic form, neces-
sary to analyze the amount of backpay due under the terms
of this Order.
(e) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at
its facility in Miami, Florida, copies of the attached notice
marked “Appendix.”3 Copies of the notice, on forms pro-
vided by the Regional Director for Region 12, after being
signed by the Respondent’s authorized representative,
shall be posted by the Respondent and maintained for 60
consecutive days in conspicuous places including all
places where notices to employees are customarily posted.
In addition to physical posting of paper notices, the notices
shall be distributed electronically, such as by email, post-
ing on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other elec-
tronic means, if the Respondent customarily communi-
cates with its employees by such means. Reasonable steps
shall be taken by the Respondent to ensure that the notices
are not altered, defaced, or covered by any other material.
In the event that, during the pendency of these proceed-
ings, the Respondent has gone out of business or closed
the facility involved in these proceedings, the Respondent
shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of the
notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since January 9,
2019.
(f) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with
the Regional Director for Region 12 a sworn certification
of a responsible official on a form provided by the Region
attesting to the steps that the Respondent has taken to com-
ply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. March 25, 2020
______________________________________
John F. Ring, Chairman
______________________________________
Marvin E. Kaplan, Member
3 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
________________________________________
William J. Emanuel Member
(SEAL) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we vi-
olated Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and
obey this notice.
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your
behalf
Act together with other employees for your bene-
fit and protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected ac-
tivities.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute the collective-
bargaining agreement we reached with the Union on Jan-
uary 9, 2019.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere
with, restrain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights
listed above.
WE WILL execute and adhere to the collective-bargain-
ing agreement we reached with the Union on January 9,
2019, giving retroactive effect to the terms of that agree-
ment to March 1, 2017, in accordance with its terms, cov-
ering our employees in the following appropriate bargain-
ing unit:
All full-time and regular part-time CNAs, laundry em-
ployees, maintenance employees, dietary employees
and housekeeping employees; excluding all registered
nurses, licensed practical nurses, confidential employ-
ees, office clerical employees, guards and supervisors as
defined by the Act.
WE WILL make our unit employees whole for any loss
of earnings and other benefits suffered as a result of our
unlawful conduct, plus interest.
WE WILL compensate unit employees for the adverse tax
consequences, if any, of receiving lump-sum backpay
awards, and WE WILL file with the Regional Director for
Region 12, within 21 days of the date the amount of
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 3
backpay is fixed, either by agreement or Board order, a
report allocating the backpay awards to the appropriate
calendar years.
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC
D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING &
REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC
The Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found
at www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-238299 or by using the QR
code below. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the
decision from the Executive Secretary, National Labor
Relations Board, 1015 Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C.
20570, or by calling (202) 273-1940.
Caroline Leonard, Esq., for the General Counsel.
Ingrid Perdomo, Administrator, for the Respondent.
Denise Allegretti, Director, for the Charging Party.
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
DONNA N. DAWSON, Administrative Law Judge. This case was
tried in Miami, Florida, on August 20, 2019. The Charging
Party, 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East (the Union),
filed original and amended charges on March 25 and May 21 of
2019. The General Counsel issued the complaint on May 24,
2019, alleging that Respondent, Coral Reef Operating Systems,
LLC d/b/a Coral Reef Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act when Respondent failed
and refused to execute an agreement upon which the parties had
agreed to the terms and conditions of employment to be incorpo-
rated in a new collective-bargaining agreement.1 On about July
2, Respondent filed a response generally denying that it had en-
tered into an agreement with the Union.2 Based on the totality
of the circumstances, I have concluded that Respondent violated
1 On August 1, 2019, the General Counsel filed an amendment to the
Complaint amending par. 5(c) to read as follows: “At all times since at
least March 1, 2014, based on Sec. 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been
the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit.” (GC
Exh. 1(j).)
2 On July 2 and 25, 2019, Respondent filed two submissions refer-
encing an attached response that it allegedly electronically sent to NLRB
on June 11, 2019. The response dated, but not filed, on June 11, 2019,
stated that Respondent believed that contract negotiations had “broken
down,” and Respondent was prepared to engage in further negotiations
“should the union so desire.” Of note, the General Counsel did not
the Act as alleged. On the entire record, including my observa-
tion of the demeanor of the witnesses, and after considering the
brief filed by the General Counsel,3 I make the following
FINDINGS OF FACT
I. JURISDICTION
Given that I have determined that jurisdictional and commerce
allegations set forth in the complaint are deemed admitted, at all
material times, Respondent has been a limited liability company
engaged in the operation of a nursing and rehabilitation facility
located at 9869 Southwest 152nd Street, Miami, Florida. During
the past 12 months, Respondent, in conducting its business op-
erations derived gross revenues in excess of $100,000. In addi-
tion, in conducting its business operations during the same time,
Respondent purchased and received at its Miami, Florida facil-
ity, goods valued in excess of $50,000 directly from points out-
side the state of Florida. The parties admit, and I find that Re-
spondent is an employer engaged in commerce within the mean-
ing of Section 2(2), (6), and (7) of the Act.
The parties admit, and I find that at all relevant times, the Un-
ion has been a labor organization within the meaning of Section
2(5) of the Act.
II. ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. Respondent and Union
At all relevant times, Ingrid Perdomo (Perdomo) has been Re-
spondent’s administrator and chief bargaining negotiator and
Joyce Horna (Horna) has been Respondent’s assistant adminis-
trator.4 As such, they have been supervisors and agents of Re-
spondent within the meaning of Section 2(11) and (13) of the
Act. They also served, at all relevant times, as Respondent’s
bargaining team for a new contract covering unit employees at
Respondent’s nursing and rehabilitation facility in Miami, Flor-
ida. Executive Director and owner, Michael Konig, was not pre-
sent and did not otherwise participate in these proceedings.
At all relevant times, Denise Allegretti (Allegretti) has been
the Union’s chief negotiator and director for Respondent’s nurs-
ing homes in Florida. Manny Bravo (Bravo) served as the facil-
ity’s organizer. At the end of 2016, Allegretti was assigned to
lead the bargaining for a new contract covering Respondent’s
nursing and rehabilitation facility in Miami, Florida. Allegretti
reports to Dale Ewart (Ewart), the Union’s assistant executive
vice president in Florida.
The following employees of Respondent (the Unit) constitute
a unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining
within the meaning of Section 9(b) of the Act:
include in its exhibits Respondent’s response with attachment referenced
in the July 2 answer. (GC Exh. 1(i).) Nevertheless, since Respondent
has neither admitted nor denied other allegations specifically set forth in
pars. 1–5 and 6(b) of the complaint and amended complaint, I find that
these allegations are deemed admitted.
3 The Division of Judges denied Respondent’s request for an exten-
sion of time to file a brief.
4 Joyce Horna was present, but Respondent did not call her as a wit-
ness. The only witnesses were Denise Allegretti for the General Counsel
and Ingrid Perdomo for Respondent.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD4
All full-time and regular part-time CNAs, laundry employees,
maintenance employees, dietary employees and housekeeping
employees; excluding all registered nurses, licensed practical
nurses, confidential employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
Since at least March 1, 2014, and at all material times, Re-
spondent has recognized the Union as the exclusive collective-
bargaining representative of the Unit. This recognition has been
embodied in successive collective-bargaining agreements, the
most recent of which was effective from March 1, 2014, through
February 28, 2017 (GC Exh. 2). At all times since at least March
1, 2014, based on Section 9(a) of the Act, the Union has been the
exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Unit. There
is no dispute, and the evidence confirms, that the 2014–2017 col-
lective-bargaining agreement (CBA) was signed by Perdomo on
behalf of Respondent and an individual named Grossberg Mi-
randa on behalf of the Union. (See signatures at GC Exh. 2 com-
pared to GC Exh. 8.)
B. Attempted Contract Negotiations/Bargaining Sessions
This case arises from the parties’ negotiations over a successor
collective-bargaining agreement after the expiration of the afore-
mentioned contract on February 28, 2017. Several months prior,
on November 28, 2016, Ewart, requested in writing to Respond-
ent’s owner and director, Michael Konig, to commence contract
negotiation. In doing so, he asked Konig to contact him to dis-
cuss dates, times and a location for bargaining sessions. Ewart
also included requests for information in preparation for bargain-
ing. (GC Exhs. 3(a)-(b).) After receiving no response, Alle-
gretti, as the assigned lead negotiator, resent the requests on Jan-
uary 11 and 26, 2017. Perdomo, Respondent’s Administrator,
finally responded on February 1, 2017, stating that, “I have for-
warded the request to the corp office.” (Tr. 28–30; GC Exhs.
4(a)-(b).) On May 15, 2017, the Union filed an unfair labor prac-
tice charge alleging that Respondent had violated Section 8(a)(5)
of the Act by failing and refusing to bargain in good faith by
failing to respond to its requests to bargain and for information.
Shortly thereafter, Respondent finally furnished the requested in-
formation and bargaining dates, which prompted the Union to
withdraw the charge after the proposed July 25, 2017 bargaining
date. (Tr. 30–33; GC Exhs. 5(a)-(b), 6(a)-(b).)
1. July 25, 2017-First bargaining session5
In preparation for the first bargaining session on July 25, 2017,
the union surveyed the employees regarding what they wanted
the next contract to include. Allegretti used this information to
draft the Union’s proposal. (Tr. 34; GC Exh. 7.) On behalf of
the Union, Allegretti, Bravo, and Margarette Nerrette, the
5 There is no dispute that each of the sessions lasted about 10–15
minutes; they all took place in Perdomo’s office. (Tr. 50.)
6 Allegretti testified that her handwritten notes on the Union’s pro-
posal reflected “TAs” or temporary agreements and the dates the parties
had discussed them.
7 See Allegretti’s “short” notations taken during bargaining sessions
from July 25, 2017, through March 2019 and the occasions on which the
Union filed unfair labor practice charges. (Tr. 40; GC Exhs. 9(a)-(e).)
Union’s vice president for long-term care in Florida, attended the
July 25 session in Perdomo’s office. Perdomo attended on behalf
of Respondent as the lead negotiator. Allegretti handed Perdomo
the Union’s proposal and they tentatively agreed to correct any
typographical errors. She also summarized what the proposal
contained including, but not limited to, differentials, wage in-
creases, starting rate increases, steps for wages and PTO (per-
sonal time off) increases.6 Respondent did not present any pro-
posals or counterproposals at this meeting. In addition to the
proposal, Allegretti also provided Perdomo with a “standard
month-to-month extension” which both she and Perdomo signed.
(Tr. 34–39; GC Exhs. 8–9.) The parties scheduled the next meet-
ing for August 8, 2017.7
2. August 8, 2017-Second bargaining session
On August 8, 2017, Allegretti, Bravo and Nerrette attended
for the Union and Perdomo and Horna represented Respondent.
Perdomo, on behalf of Respondent, rejected all of the Union’s
proposals and verbally set forth Respondent’s proposal to main-
tain the prior contract that had expired in February 2017, with
the exception of reducing PTO for new hires to two weeks or 10
days per year, instead of 17 days in the expired contract.8 Alle-
gretti asked questions about Respondent’s new PTO proposal
and asked Perdomo to clarify whether “no other changes” also
meant keeping the 6 month wage increases. Perdomo responded,
“just keeping what’s currently in the contract,” rather than accept
the Union’s proposed increases.9 The Union did not respond to
Respondent’s proposal and Respondent never reduced it to writ-
ing. (Tr. 42–48; GC Exhs. 2, pp. 14–15, 9(c).)
3. April 25, 2018-Third bargaining session
The parties did not reconvene until April 25, 2018, due to Per-
domo’s maternity leave which commenced shortly after the last
meeting. Only Horna attended on behalf of Perdomo and Re-
spondent. The same union representatives were present. (Tr.
46–47.) The Union advised that it was revising its proposal to
reduce its initial wage increase to 15 cents every 6 months and
asked Respondent to modify the prior contract’s new hire mini-
mum wage rate of only $8.50 per hour. Horna responded that
she would present the Union’s modified proposal to Perdomo
and that they would respond via email. The Union never re-
ceived a response as promised. (Tr. 49–50; GC Exh. 9.)
4. July 31, 2018-Fourth bargaining session and Respondent’s
termination of the extended CBA
Despite numerous attempts by Allegretti to schedule the next
bargaining meeting, they did not meet until July 31, 2018. (GC
Exh. 10). Both Perdomo and Horna attended for Respondent.
Perdomo rejected the Union’s proposals, including the Union’s
modifications presented on April 25. She did not, however,
counter the Union’s proposal or otherwise modify Respondent’s
8 PTO= Paid Time Off includes time off for holidays, sick, and vaca-
tion leave. (Tr. 44.)
9 Perdomo did not rebut what took place or what was said during the
first four bargaining sessions. This includes the content of Respondent’s
verbal proposal tendered by Respondent during the second session.
Therefore, I credit Allegretti’s testimony regarding those meetings.
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 5
verbal proposal made on August 8, 2017. During that meeting,
Allegretti informed Perdomo and Horna that the Union sought
an increase for new hire wages because of a rumor in the facility
that Respondent had been hiring new employees at a higher wage
rate than reflected in the expired agreement. Perdomo did not
believe this report but said she would investigate. Therefore, Al-
legretti verbally requested that Respondent provide the Union
with an updated bargaining unit list, along with current rates of
pay, since they had not received one in over a year. (Tr. 51–54.)
Later that day, Perdomo informed Allegretti by email that Re-
spondent had decided to terminate the month-to-month contract
extension effective August 10, 2018. On August 1, 2018, by
email, Allegretti clarified for Perdomo that their “month to
month contract extension and giving 10 days of notice” meant
that it would not expire until August 31, 2018. Perdomo agreed
to extend the contract to August 31, 2018. (Tr. 54–55; GC Exh.
11.)
On August 1, 2018, Allegretti also sent Perdomo two addi-
tional emails. The first email included an example of the format-
ting for the bargaining list that she had requested on July 31. (GC
Exhs. 9(d), 10.) She sent the second email to memorialize and
confirm the Union’s understanding of management’s last pro-
posal made on August 8, 2017, in other words:
We just want to make sure we understood managements last
proposal at bargaining yesterday.
1- Employer proposed to maintain all current contract lan-
guage including the semi-annual across the board wage in-
crease of $.15
2- All employees maintain current PTO schedule but New Em-
ployees hired shall receive 2 weeks of PTO.
3- Management rejected all other union proposals
Please let us know if we missed anything.
(Tr. 55–56; GC Exh. 12.)10 The Union never received a response
to the emails. (Id.)
On August 8 and 20, 2018, Allegretti requested the status of
the Union’s information request and asked that Perdomo forward
the information as soon as possible. (Tr. 61–63; GC Exh. 13(a),
p. 1.) On September 6, 2018, Perdomo finally responded, stating
that, “[o]ur contract extension expired on 8/31/18. Therefore,
there is no bargaining to be done.” On September 10, Allegretti
replied that, “[w]e are entitled to this information as explained in
10 Perdomo objected to the email at GC Exh. 12, stating that she never
received it, or she would have responded accordingly. She claimed that
this email, unlike the others, did not contain her proper email address,
i.e., there was no “@coralreefnursing.com” after her name, “iperdomo.”
I overruled the objection. Although this was not testimony, a review of
subsequent emails contained the same August 1 email that was printed
from a forwarding email showing that it had in fact been sent to Per-
domo’s full email address. Moreover, Perdomo never denied that she had
in fact presented the Union with Respondent’s verbal agreement on Au-
gust 8, 2017. (Tr. 56–60, 74–5; GC Exh. 16(a).)
11 I note that Perdomo’s email system scrambled and interspersed
“htlm” coding throughout some of the emails, for example, in GC Exh.
13(b), pp. 2–9 and GC Exh. 16 (Tr. 62–63, 72).
our prior requests. We expect to receive the information from
you no later than close of business on 9/17/18. If we do not re-
ceive it, we will be forced to take further action.” (GC Exh.
13(b), p. 1.)11 Respondent failed to furnish the information by
September 17. Therefore, the Union filed another unfair labor
practice charge with the NLRB, alleging that Respondent had
failed to provide the information requested on July 31. This
charge prompted Respondent to provide the requested infor-
mation; therefore, the Union withdrew the charge.12 (Tr. 64; GC
Exhs. 14(a)-(b).)
5. Next and final bargaining session on January 9, 2019
The next negotiating meeting was scheduled for January 9,
2019. Prior to that meeting, the Union had decided that it would
“fully concede to management’s last proposal since, you know,
during the course of the 2 years…[t]hey never put anything else
on the table.” (Tr. 66.) At the meeting, prior to presenting man-
agement officials with their signed concession proposal, the Un-
ion asked once more if Respondent “had anything else they
wanted to present.” When management responded that they did
not, the Union provided them with the signed proposal. (Tr. 66–
70; GC Exh. 15.) According to Allegretti, Perdomo looked
through the proposal and she (Allegretti) explained that the only
changes to the same terms of the most recently expired CBA
were some dates, typo corrections, and highlights to show where
the Union had changed employees’ social security numbers to
their identification numbers for privacy. It also included Re-
spondent’s only proposed change—the 10 days of PTO for new
hires. Allegretti also pointed out the updated effective dates
from the expired contract to March 17, 2017, through February
28, 2021, as well as a change in the date for the next semi-annual
wage increase to March 1, 2018, instead of March 1, 2017. Other
than that procedural update, which favored Respondent, the three
years of semi-annual wage increases of $.15 an hour remained
the same. (Tr, 66–70, 72; GC Exh. 15 compared to Exh. 2.) Per-
domo never contradicted Allegretti’s account of the sessions up
to this point.
Although Allegretti asked Perdomo to sign the agreement, she
did not. Instead, she told them that she would review it with her
“folks” and get back to the Union within one or two weeks.
However, Allegretti’s notes dated January 9, 2019, the day of the
last bargaining session, reflect that at the end of the session, “In-
grid [Perdomo] says she’ll sign [and] return next week.” (Tr.
72–73; GC Exh. 9(e).)13 Perdomo testified that she told Alle-
gretti that “I was going to contact the executive director and we
were going to go over the agreement and then I will send her a
12 The parties agreed that there was a typographical error in the charge
date; instead of “September 17, 2019,” it should have read “September
17, 2018.” (Tr. 65–66.)
13 Perdomo stated that she did not understand some of the wording in
Allegretti’s notes at GC Exhs. 9(a) through 9(e); she said she did not
have an objection, but if she did not understand it, how would she be able
to object. I overruled what I believed to be an objection and informed
Perdomo that she would have the opportunity to question Allegretti re-
garding her notes on cross-examination. Perdomo did not do so. There-
fore, I credit Allegretti’s testimony that she prepared these notes regard-
ing the bargaining sessions “during” the sessions “[t]hat’s why they’re
so short.” I also give credence to the contents of the notes. (Tr. 40–41,
80–81.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD6
response.” (Tr. 90–91.)
Following the bargaining session on January 9, Allegretti sent
Perdomo a follow-up email with a copy of the Union’s signed
agreement, which reflected Respondent’s last and only proposal
of August 8, 2017. (Tr. 42–50; GC Exhs. 2, pp. 14–15, 9(c).) She
asked that Perdomo sign, scan and return an executed agreement
to the Union by the next week. (GC Exh. 16(a).) Allegretti tes-
tified that she believed that this agreement was final and ex-
pected Respondent to sign it because the Union had conceded to
all terms of Respondent’s only contract proposal since 2017.
There was no evidence that Perdomo questioned any changes or
indicated in any way that Respondent may want to change major
terms of the agreement. Allegretti also believed that Perdomo
had the authority as the administrator to sign the agreement. (Tr.
38, 85.) The record shows that Perdomo had in fact signed the
expired 2014–2017 CBA on behalf of Respondent, as well as the
extension agreement in this case. (Tr. 25–26; GC Exh. 2 com-
pared to GC Exh. 8.)
6. Post-January 9, 2019 communications and Respondent’s
new proposed changes
On January 28, 2019, Allegretti emailed Perdomo asking her
to advise “where you are regarding signing and returning the
contract to us;” on February 4, Allegretti emailed another request
that Perdomo sign and return the contract within the week. (GC
Exh. 16(a).) On February 4, Perdomo replied that she had “sent
it to the Executive Director for final approval,” and would send
the agreement back to Allegretti as soon as he “gives” it. (GC
Exh. 16(b), p. 1.) Again, Perdomo gave no indication that they
would modify substantive terms of Respondent’s proposal. On
March 4, when she had not received further communication from
Perdomo, Allegretti emailed Perdomo asking for the status of the
signed agreement. (GC Exh. 16(b), p. 1.)
Perdomo finally responded to Allegretti on March 6, 2019, at
2:35 p.m. She notified the Union that,
The agreement was reviewed by the Executive Director and
he would like the following changed:
12.4 Wage Increases Remove all increases

13.6 Any PTO hours earned and not utilized will not be paid
even if a resignation is given and entire notice is worked [sic]
22.1 Health insurance cost will be gross pay of employee
multiplied by 9.5%
Please let me know if you agree with these changes and send
me a revised agreement
(GC Exh. 16(c), pp. 1-2; Tr. 77–79.)
Allegretti responded on March 6 at 3:20 p.m. that “[b]ased on
your email, this is regressive bargaining since the final document
14 Respondent, at no time, requested a continuance to obtain counsel.
Although not testimony, it is noted that Konig who was only present dur-
ing the first of two conference calls, indicated that Respondent could not
was the employers last proposal and you are now proposing to
reduce that proposal. Please respond if this is accurate.” (GC
Exh. 16(c), p. 1.) Perdomo replied within 25 minutes (at 3:46
p.m.) that, “I did not sign the agreement nor did I initial any
pages. This is what he is proposing.” (Id.)
Between August 8, 2017, and March 6, 2019, Respondent
never provided the Union with any modifications of its August
8, 2017 proposal. Further, Respondent never terminated directly
or indirectly its only proposal. There were no other communica-
tions between the parties regarding contract negotiations or pro-
posals. (Tr. 79–81.) The Union in turn filed its initial charge in
this case regarding Respondent’s failure to bargain in good faith
by failing to execute the agreement. (GC Exh. 1(a).)
C. Respondent’s Case
As previously stated, Perdomo, who is not an attorney, but
who represented Respondent at the hearing, did not present any
witnesses. She did not question Horna who was present with her
during all of the bargaining sessions, including the final one on
January 9, 2019. Nor did she request to call Konig.
Following Allegretti’s testimony on direct, the General Coun-
sel furnished Perdomo (and Horna) with Allegretti’s investiga-
tive affidavits to review. (Tr. 82.) On cross-examination, Per-
domo asked Allegretti if it was her “understanding on January 9,
2019, the agreement that you gave to me was the final agree-
ment?” Allegretti answered, “[t]hat was my understanding, yes.”
(Tr. 84.) This was Perdomo’s only question of Allegretti. Sub-
sequently, I asked Allegretti to tell me again why she believed
that the agreement that she gave to Perdomo on January 9 was a
final agreement. She responded that, “we, meaning the Union,
had conceded to their proposal in its entirety, and they had no
other proposals they put on the table in the 2 years we were going
back and forth.” (Tr. 85.)
After giving her opening statement, I informed Perdomo that
the opening was not testimony to be considered in my decision,
but that she could testify or give a statement of her recollection
of events surrounding the negotiations and proposals. Initially,
she stated that she was “not going to testify to anything. . . [t]hey
presented their case, and we don’t have any legal counsel here,
and I don’t feel comfortable, you know, being a witness to some-
thing that again, what I stated before, this was something that I
was understanding that we were going to continue bargaining.”
I explained once more that the position she was taking, in other
words, that it was her understanding that bargaining had not
ended, did not constitute testimony or evidence. She replied that
she did not “have anything else to present,” and understood that
the only evidence of record would be that which the General
Counsel had presented.14 Finally, Perdomo took the stand. (Tr.
87–89.)
I asked Perdomo why she did not believe that there was a final
agreement on January 9, 2019 when Allegretti presented her with
a signed agreement that incorporated everything that Respondent
had proposed thus far. She responded that:
afford an attorney. Perdomo represented Respondent in the second con-
ference call and informed the parties and me at trial that she would be
representing Respondent.
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 7
So to my understanding, it was not a final agreement because
we were still bargaining with the Union at such point that I did
explain to Ms. Allegretti that I was going to contact the execu-
tive director and we were going to go over the agreement and
then I will send her a response. I did send her a response, and
I had indicated the changes that we wanted to have made in the
agreement. And then from there, that's when the complaint was
issued, and here we are.
(Tr. 90.) Next, we engaged in the following exchange:
Q. BY JUDGE DAWSON: Why is it that you all did not
make these proposed -- the proposal that you submitted or the
changes in March of 2019, why didn't the Company make
those proposals before?
A. To my understanding, from what I have knowledge of
from the contract, was that at the time that we were doing the
initial bargaining and we were -- and they were making the pro-
posals, the part of the health insurance was overlooked and so
was the section of the paid time off.
Q. Overlooked by the Respondent?
A. Overlooked by myself and by the executive director.
Q. Okay. Do you have anything else to say on behalf of the
Respondent?
A. No, I do not.
(Tr. 91.)
Credibility15
There are few if any disputed facts in this case. Respondent
in its responses to the complaint essentially denied that it had
violated the Act with its assertion that it believed that contract
negotiations had “broken down” and that it was prepared to en-
gage in further negotiations “should the union so desire.” Per-
domo testified that she did not understand the Union’s proposed
agreement of January 9, 2019, to be a final agreement because
they were still bargaining with the Union. She explained that
this was the reason that she told Allegretti that, she “was going
to contact the executive director and we were going to go over
the agreement and then I will send her a response.” She further
testified that she subsequently did send a response containing the
changes that they wanted to include in the agreement. (Tr. 90.)
According to Allegretti, Perdomo “looked through” the signed
agreement and told them that “[s]he had to review it with her
folks, and she would get it back to us.” Allegretti believed that
Perdomo “said it would only take her about a week or two.” (Tr.
73.) Allegretti’s notes from that meeting on January 9 state that
Perdomo told them, “she’ll sign [and] return by next week.” (GC
Exh. 9(e).) Allegretti testified that she believed that with the
15 In assessing credibility, I have considered factors such as: the con-
text of the witness's testimony, the quality of the witness’s recollection,
testimonial consistency, the presence or absence of corroboration, the
weight of the respective evidence, established or admitted facts, inherent
probabilities, and reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the rec-
ord as a whole. See Double D Construction Group, 339 NLRB 303, 305
(2003); Daikichi Sushi, 335 NLRB 622, 623 (2001) (citing Shen Auto-
motive Dealership Group, 321 NLRB 586, 589 (1996)), enfd. sub nom.,
56 Fed. Appx. 516 (D.C. Cir. 2003). Credibility findings need not be all-
or-nothing propositions.
Union having agreed to all of Respondent’s terms, the agreement
would be signed. This was especially the case since after August
2017, Respondent never mentioned in subsequent bargaining
sessions that Respondent had considered further changes to the
new hire PTO, health benefits, or wage rates.
I credit Allegretti’s testimony along with her meeting notes
taken on the date of the meeting, that she understood and that
Perdomo told them that she would show Konig the agreement
signed by the Union before signing and returning the agree-
ment.16 I do not credit Perdomo’s testimony that during the Jan-
uary 9 bargaining session, she did not believe that the agreement
was final. In her February 4 email to Allegretti, Perdomo said
that she “sent [the agreement] to the executive director for final
approval. I will send it to you as son [sic] as he gives [sic].”17
Perdomo did not indicate that either she or Konig would be mak-
ing any material changes to the terms of the agreement nor did
the evidence show that Allegretti had reason to expect them to
do so. I believe that Perdomo understood and the evidence re-
flects that the Union’s acquiescence to Respondent’s proposal
constituted a final agreement without any substantial revisions
by Perdomo or Konig.
In addition, I overruled Perdomo’s objection to the admission
of Allegretti’s August 1, 2018 email requesting that she confirm
the Union’s understanding of Respondent’s verbal proposal
made on July 31, 2017. The evidence showed that the email was
in fact sent to her correct, complete email address. As such, I
find that she received the email and failed to respond which fur-
ther supports the Union’s position that the initial proposal re-
mained open. As stated, Respondent through either Perdomo or
Konig never strayed from this proposal, or indicated otherwise,
not even on January 19, 2019. (Tr. 55–56; GC Exh. 12.)
Perdomo’s credibility is further diminished by her testimony
that Respondent waited until March 2019 to make changes to its
own proposal because “the part of the health insurance was over-
looked and so was the section of paid time off. . . [o]verlooked
by myself and by the executive director.” (Tr. 91.) It is unbe-
lievable that Respondent would have overlooked these manda-
tory subjects of bargaining during the course of almost 2
years. To the contrary, it is apparent that Respondent could
not possibly have passed over these provisions since the
parties discussed wages and PTO in their bargaining ses-
sions. Moreover, in Respondent’s August 8, 2017 proposal,
Respondent restricted the number of PTO days for new
hires.
Analysis
The General Counsel argues that Respondent is bound to the
concession contract signed by the Union on January 9, 2019, and
16 My description of the events that transpired during the bargaining
sessions is based on the testimony of Allegretti and the content of her
bargaining notes, as well as to a very limited extent on Perdomo’s brief
testimony. Although there is little dispute about what took place or what
was said, to the extent that there is any discrepancy between Allegretti’s
oral testimony and her bargaining notes, I will generally credit the notes,
which were contemporaneous with the events.
17 Allegretti testified that she assumed that Perdomo meant that she
sent it to Konig “for final approval and that she would send it to us.” (Tr.
77.)
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD8
relies on a common law “meeting of the minds” theory. I agree
that this theory is applicable in this case and that the Board has
determined that a valid collective-bargaining agreement hinges
on whether the totality of the circumstances show that there was
a “meeting of the minds” on all substantive issues and material
terms of the contract. H.J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, 311 U.S. 514
(1941). See also, Delta Sandblasting Co., Inc., 367 NLRB No.
17, slip op. at 1 (2018); Sunrise Nursing Home, 325 NLRB 380,
389 (1998); International Rural Electric Assn., 309 NLRB 1189
(1992). It is also based on the parties’ expressed intentions re-
gardless of whether all parties have signed the agreement.
Kelly’s Private Car Service, 289 NLRB 30 (1988), enfd. 919
F.2d 839 (2d Cir. 1990). Nevertheless, it is the General Coun-
sel’s burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that
there was a meeting of the minds between the Union and Re-
spondent. Cherry Valley Apartments, 292 NLRB 38 (1988). The
General Counsel has met its burden in this case, and Respondent
has failed to rebut this presumption.
The Board has distinguished the meaning of “meeting of the
minds” or “offer and acceptance” in labor law from that in com-
mercial contract law. It is well established that, “technical rules
of contract do not control whether a collective bargaining agree-
ment has been reached,” and the “the common law rule that a
rejection or counter proposal necessarily terminates the offer has
little relevance in the collective bargaining setting.” Thus, if an
unconditional offer is made by one party, “the other party may
accept it after a reasonable period of time even if the accepting
party has earlier rejected the offer or made a counterproposal; the
“acceptance will therefore be binding on both parties provided
the offer has not been withdrawn prior to acceptance.” Inner
City Broad, 281 NLRB 1210, 1215–1216 (1986), citing John
Morrell & Co., 268 NLRB 304, 306–307 (1983); Pepsi-Cola
Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 659 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1981) (and other
cases). In Inner City Broad, above at 1216, the Board further
concluded that despite the respondent’s unconditional offer, the
agreement proffered by the union deviated from the employer’s
offer regarding at least one significant term and therefore failed
to express a meeting of the minds.
In Delta Sandblasting Co., Inc., 367 NLRB No. 17, slip op. at
9, the Board set forth what the General Counsel must prove in
order to establish a “meeting of the minds” as follows:
To prove a meeting of the minds, the General Counsel must
prove that the parties' objectively manifested intent, as demon-
strated by their communications with each other, as well as
their “tone and temperament,” shows that they agreed on all
substantive issues and material terms contained in the alleged
agreement. Crittenton Hospital, 343 NLRB 717, 718 (2004);
Diplomat Envelope Corp., 263 NLRB 525, 535-536 (1982),
enfd. 760 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 1985). It is appropriate to evaluate
the parties' conduct against the backdrop of their prior negotia-
tions. Electrical Workers IBEW Local 938, 200 NLRB 850
(1972), enfd. 492 F.2d 1240 (4th Cir. 1974).
18 When comparing signatures on the prior agreement and the tenta-
tive agreement, and uncontroverted testimony, it appears that Perdomo
signed both. (GC Exhs. 2, 8.)
First, I find that Perdomo had full authority to bargain and
bind Respondent to a successor collective-bargaining agreement.
The Board has rejected the argument that a respondent was not
bound to an agreement where the chief negotiator lacked author-
ity to bind it and the union was aware that the general manager
had to approve any agreement reached between the parties. It
confirmed a “well-settled” doctrine that, “when an agent is ap-
pointed to negotiate a collective-bargaining agreement that agent
is deemed to have apparent authority to bind his principal in the
absence of clear notice to the contrary.” Hyatt Regency New Or-
leans, above, at 281–282, citing University of Bridgeport, 229
NLRB 1074 (1977); see Aptos Seascape Corp., 194 NLRB 540,
544 (1971). Further, a principal may only limit its agent’s au-
thority by giving clear and timely notice (i.e., provided before an
agreement is reached). A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., 359 NLRB
1463, 1464 (2013). In this case, it is clear that Perdomo had au-
thority to bargain on Respondent’s behalf. She was the chief ne-
gotiator having missed only one session; sessions were delayed
due to her unavailability; she communicated Respondent’s Au-
gust 8, 2017 proposal; and she agreed to extend the expired CBA
month-to-month and later terminated that extension. Further,
Perdomo signed the most recent expired agreement (GC Exhs. 2,
8.)18 Thus, I find that the parties not only had a meeting of the
minds but that the Union reasonably understood Perdomo’s hav-
ing Konig review the agreement and get back to the Union within
a week or two was merely a formality. The Union never ex-
pected, nor did Respondent ever suggest, that Respondent in-
tended to change or renege on its open-ended agreement.
Next, there was no deviation by the Union in this case such as
that by the union in Inner City Broad, above. Further, Respond-
ent never gave any indication during the bargaining sessions be-
tween 2017 and January 2019 that it wanted to do away with
unutilized PTO hours or change health insurance costs. Nor did
Respondent ever suggest a desire to reduce the amount of the six-
month wage rate increases much less remove them altogether.
(Tr. 69–70.) Instead, Respondent never rescinded or changed the
terms of its August 8, 2017 proposal to keep all terms of the prior
contract except for the decrease in PTO days for newly hired em-
ployees. I have discredited Perdomo’s testimony that she did not
intend the Union’s concession agreement to be final and there-
fore, find that the Union’s acceptance of all terms of Respond-
ent’s unconditional proposal constituted a final agreement.
The Act does not require that an employer enter into an agree-
ment, but “it does not follow. . . that, having reached an agree-
ment, [an employer] can refuse to sign it, because he has never
agreed to sign one.” H.J. Heinz Co. v. NLRB, above at 525–526.
The Supreme Court reasoned that “[t]he freedom of the employer
to refuse to make an agreement relates to its terms in matters of
substance and not, once it is reached, to its expression in a signed
contract, the absence of which, as experience has shown, tends
to frustrate the end sought” to “secure the legislative objective of
collective bargaining.” Id. Thus, a party’s sudden rejection of
its only proposal in almost 2 years, after the other party has con-
ceded to all of its terms and signed it, is unlawful.
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 9
In J. Hofert Co., 269 NLRB 520, 521–522 (1984), the em-
ployer expressly communicated to the union that its offer was
contingent on the union accepting it within 8 days; otherwise, the
employer would rescind the offer. The Board rejected the
judge’s finding that the respondent violated the act by failing to
sign the agreement because the respondent’s conditional offer
was “explicit and unequivocal,” and concluded that the respond-
ent’s proposal “was withdrawn…under the explicit terms of that
offer.” Id. See also Inner City Broad, 281 NLRB 1210, 1215–
1216 (1986) (the offer is construed as being withdrawn if not
accepted by the conditional deadline); Hyatt Regency New Orle-
ans, 281 NLRB 279, 280–282 (1986) (no duty to execute an
agreement where respondent clearly communicated that it had
withdrawn its offer and confirmed that it had not been rein-
stated). Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co. v. NLRB, 259 F.2d 87, 90 (8th
Cir. 1981) (an offer, “once made, will remain on the table unless
explicitly withdrawn by the offeror or unless circumstances arise
which would lead the parties to reasonably believe that the offer
had been withdrawn.”);19 NLRB v. Quinn Rest. Corp., 14 F.3d
811, 815 (2d Cir. 1994) (refusal to sign an agreed upon contract
and alter the terms violated the Act): John Morrell & Co., 268
NLRB 304, 306–307 (1983).
Here, there is no doubt that Respondent’s offer remained on
the bargaining table in the absence of an explicit withdrawal of
the offer by Respondent. Based on the totality of the circum-
stances in this case, Respondent acted in bad faith by refusing to
sign its own proposed agreement after the Union conceded to all
of the terms. Further, Respondent’s bargaining history from the
onset in 2016 reveals that Respondent continuously frustrated
the process by failing to respond with bargaining dates and later
by failing to provide requested information in the midst of bar-
gaining. In fact, Perdomo abruptly and prematurely terminated
the month-to-month extended contract and refused to respond to
the information requests, claiming that “there was no bargaining
to be done.” Respondent did not begin the initial bargaining or
furnish the requested information until the Union pursued unfair
labor practice charges in each instance. In addition, a review of
the numerous emails regarding attempts to schedule bargaining
show that Respondent caused most of the bargaining delays.
Respondent waited 3 more months after the January 9, 2019
bargaining session to make additional demands. Perdomo testi-
fied that they waited almost two years to modify the proposal
because “at the time that we were doing the initial bargaining
and we were—and they were making the proposals,” both
she and Konig had “overlooked” the contract sections re-
garding health insurance and PTO. (Tr. 91.). As previously
determined, it is unbelievable that Perdomo and Konig in-
advertently overlooked such important contract provisions
such as health care, PTO, and wage increases during the ne-
gotiating sessions between July 31, 2017, and March 6,
2019. During those meetings, Respondent discussed with
the Union and rejected all of the Union’s initial proposals
regarding wage increases, pay differentials, and increases in
19 In Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., the respondent failed to give an expla-
nation as to why it withdrew and changed the terms of its proposal.
20 If no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102.46 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, the findings, conclusions, and recommended
PTO, and insisted that they maintain the terms of the ex-
pired agreement with the exception of decreasing PTO days
for new hires. In addition, prior to Allegretti tendering the
concession agreement signed by the Union, Perdomo as-
sured her that Respondent did not have “anything else they
wanted to present.”
Further, Respondent did not controvert testimony about the
nature and substance of the Union’s January 9 concession agree-
ment, including the dates in which it would be effective and ini-
tial date to commence the bi-annual wage increases. Nor did
Respondent object to the agreement. Therefore, I find that Re-
spondent’s incredible justification for its actions constitutes a
pretext for stalling and frustrating the bargaining process and
overall refusing to bargain in good faith.
Consequently, I find that Respondent failed and refused to
bargain in good faith with the Union by not honoring and exe-
cuting its own agreed upon bargaining agreement. In doing so,
Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. By failing to execute a previously agreed upon collective-
bargaining agreement, Respondent has engaged in unfair labor
practices affecting commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. By failing to execute a previously agreed upon collective-
bargaining agreement, Respondent violated Section 8(a)(1) and
(5) of the Act.
REMEDY
Having found that the Respondent has engaged in certain un-
fair labor practices, we shall order it to cease and desist and to
take certain affirmative action designed to effectuate the policies
of the Act. Specifically, having found that the Respondent vio-
lated Section 8(a)(1) and (5) of the Act by failing to execute a
previously agreed upon collective bargaining agreement, Re-
spondent is ordered to bargain in good faith by executing said
agreement and giving it retroactive effect to January 9, 2019.
Respondent is also ordered to make unit employees whole for
any loss of earnings as a result of its unlawful conduct. Backpay
shall be computed in accordance with Ogle Protection Service,
183 NLRB 682 (1970), enfd. 444 F.2d 502 (6th Cir.1971), with
interest as prescribed in New Horizons, 283 NLRB 1173 (1987).
On these findings of fact and conclusions of law and on the
entire record, I issue the following recommended20
ORDER
The Respondent, Coral Reef Operating Systems, LLC d/b/a
Coral Reef Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, Miami,
Florida, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns, shall
1. Cease and desist from
(a) Failing and refusing to execute a previously agreed upon
collective-bargaining agreement in violation of Section 8(1) and
(5) of the Act.
(b) In any like or related manner interfering with, restraining,
Order shall, as provided in Sec. 102.48 of the Rules, be adopted by the
Board and all objections to them shall be deemed waived for all purposes.
DECISIONS OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD10
or coercing employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed
them by Section 7 of the Act.
2. Take the following affirmative action necessary to effectu-
ate the policies of the Act.
(a) Bargain with the Union in good faith by putting into writ-
ing, executing and adhering to the agreement reached on the
terms and conditions of employment and signed by the Union on
January 19, 2019, which is effective from March 1, 2017,
through February 28, 2021, for Respondent’s employees in the
following bargaining unit exclusively represented by the Union:
All full-time and regular part-time CNAs, laundry employees,
maintenance employees, dietary employees and housekeeping
employees; excluding all registered nurses, licensed practical
nurses, confidential employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
(b) Make Unit employees whole for any loss of earnings and
other benefits suffered as a result of Respondent’s unlawful con-
duct, plus interest, in the manner set forth in the remedy section
of this decision.
(c) Within 14 days after service by the Region, post at its fa-
cility in Miami, Florida copies of the attached notice marked
“Appendix.”21 Copies of the notice, on forms provided by the
Regional Director for Region 12, after being signed by the Re-
spondent’s authorized representative, shall be posted by the Re-
spondent and maintained for 60 consecutive days in conspicuous
places including all places where notices to employees are cus-
tomarily posted. In addition to physical posting of paper notices,
the notices shall be distributed electronically, such as by email,
posting on an intranet or an internet site, and/or other electronic
means, if the Respondent customarily communicates with its em-
ployees by such means. Reasonable steps shall be taken by the
Respondent to ensure that the notices are not altered, defaced, or
covered by any other material. In the event that, during the pen-
dency of these proceedings, the Respondent has gone out of busi-
ness or closed the facility involved in these proceedings, the Re-
spondent shall duplicate and mail, at its own expense, a copy of
the notice to all current employees and former employees em-
ployed by the Respondent at any time since January 9, 2019.
(d) Within 21 days after service by the Region, file with the
Regional Director a sworn certification of a responsible official
on a form provided by the Region attesting to the steps that the
Respondent has taken to comply.
Dated, Washington, D.C. November 1, 2019
APPENDIX
NOTICE TO EMPLOYEES
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
The National Labor Relations Board has found that we violated
Federal labor law and has ordered us to post and obey this notice.
21 If this Order is enforced by a judgment of a United States court of
appeals, the words in the notice reading “Posted by Order of the National
Labor Relations Board” shall read “Posted Pursuant to a Judgment of the
FEDERAL LAW GIVES YOU THE RIGHT TO
Form, join, or assist a union
Choose representatives to bargain with us on your be-
half
Act together with other employees for your benefit and
protection
Choose not to engage in any of these protected activi-
ties.
WE WILL NOT fail and refuse to execute a previously agreed
upon collective-bargaining agreement proposed to and accepted
by the Union.
WE WILL NOT in any like or related manner interfere with, re-
strain, or coerce you in the exercise of the rights guaranteed you
by Section 7 of the Act.
WE WILL bargain with the Union in good faith by putting into
writing, executing and adhering to the collective-agreement
reached on the terms and conditions of employment and signed
by the Union on January 19, 2019, which is effective from March
1, 2017, through February 28, 2021, for Respondent’s employees
in the following bargaining unit exclusively represented by the
Union:
All full-time and regular part-time CNAs, laundry employees,
maintenance employees, dietary employees and housekeeping
employees; excluding all registered nurses, licensed practical
nurses, confidential employees, office clerical employees,
guards and supervisors as defined by the Act.
WE WILL make our Unit employees whole for any loss of earn-
ings and other benefits and suffered as a result of our unlawful
conduct, plus interest.
WE WILL file a report with the Social Security Administration
allocating backpay to the appropriate calendar quarters.
WE WILL compensate Unit employees for the adverse tax con-
sequences, if any, of receiving one or more lump-sum backpay
awards, and file with the Regional Director of Region 12 a report
allocating back pay awards to the appropriate calendar years.
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC
D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING &
REHABILITATIONCENTER
Administrative Law Judge’s decision can be found at
www.nlrb.gov/case/12-CA-238299 or by using the QR code be-
low. Alternatively, you can obtain a copy of the decision from
the Executive Secretary, National Labor Relations Board, 1015
Half Street, S.E., Washington, D.C. 20570, or by calling (202)
273–1940.
United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of the National Labor
Relations Board.”
CORAL REEF OPERATING SYSTEMS, LLC D/B/A CORAL REEF NURSING AND REHABILITATION CENTER, LLC 11